GAS CHAMBERS, GULAGS AND GLOSSING OVER THE TRUTH..

Biased BBC’s Alan brings a curiously non-judgemental piece on a Labour MP here:

‘A Labour MP has branded a fellow train passenger a “lager drinking oaf” and suggested he should “have been killed before he could breed”.’

If that had been said by a Tory imagine the outcry….in fact wasn’t some one hounded just for using the word ‘breed’ a while back?

‘Howard Flight (millionaire banker, euro sceptic and Peer)criticised Chancellor George Osborne’s plan to strip child benefit from higher earners as an attack on wealthier families. “We’re going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it’s jolly expensive, but for those on benefit there is every incentive,” he said.’

‘Labour branded Mr Flight’s comments “shameful” and said they showed the Tories were out of touch with people…. “These shameful but revealing comments cast serious doubt over David Cameron’s judgement in personally appointing Howard Flight to the House of Lords only a few days ago.’

The BBC take? ‘…..critics have said Mr Flight’s remarks smack of “eugenics”.

And eugenics is a bad thing in the popular mind, at least in part due to its association with the Nazis. But there’s more to the story than that.

If you had given a speech about eugenics in the latter part of the 19th Century, it would have been a fairly unremarkable position to take. Well of course they would say that……..because….the Left have record on this sort of thing……and never forget Hitler was a socialist…..

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2010/11/eugenics-is-the-dirty-little-secret-of-the-british-left.html
‘Freedland concludes his piece as follows –
One other doctrine was crucial – profound elitism. It strikes the 1990s ear oddly, but these leading lights of British socialism had no patience for equality.
“For years, leftists, historians and everyone else have drawn a veil over Adolf Hitler’s naming of his creed National Socialism. It has been dismissed as a perverse PR trick of the Fuhrer’s, as if Nazism and socialism represented opposite faiths. The same view has infused the left’s understanding of the genocides committed in the name of communism, whether by Stalin or Pol Pot, as if those men were merely betraying the otherwise noble theory whose cause they proclaimed.”
“But the early history of British socialism tells a different story. It suggests that socialism – with its unshakeable faith in science, central planning and the cool wisdom of the rational elite – contained the seeds of the atrocities that were to come later. Eventually, in the shadow of Auschwitz, Treblinka and Sobibor, the British left gave up its flirtation with eugenics. They saw where it had led. But, just like the governments of Scandinavia, their past was buried too quickly and forgotten. The names of Russell, Webb and Shaw still retain their lustre despite their association with the foulest idea of the 20th century. They escaped the reckoning. Perhaps now, posthumously, it’s time to see them, and much of socialism itself, as they truly were.”
According to Freedland –
…George Bernard Shaw wrote: “The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialisation of the selective breeding of man.”
…Bertrand Russell suggested that the state issue colour-coded procreation tickets.
…H. G. Wells hailed eugenics as the first step toward the removal of “detrimental types and characteristics”.
…Keynes endorsed legalised birth control because the working class was too “drunken and ignorant” to be trusted to keep its own numbers down.
…Marie Stopes and Mary Stocks “were not motivated by a kind of proto-feminism, but rather by the urge to reduce the numbers of the burgeoning lumpenproletariat”.
…Beatrice Webb was sure her genetic material was worth preserving, describing herself as ‘the cleverest member of one of the cleverest families in the cleverest class of the cleverest nation of the world”.
The New Statesman declared in 1931: “The legitimate claims of eugenics are not inherently incompatible with the outlook of the collectivist movement. On the contrary, they would be expected to find their most intransigent opponents amongst those who cling to the individualistic views of parenthood and family economics.”